Tscan wrote:I had to use 2 cameras a lot, to cut back and forth in order to keep things in sync.

I did similar work with 16mm and digital camera footage...aways looking for a downstroke guitar strum or a drum stick hitting a snare head to try and sync, but even then it was guess work.

Tscan wrote:Will there be an option for film and processing only? But for less than the $40 it costs now? Based on the rumors, i'm better off just buying the stock by itself and sending it to the same lab i've been using.

If the film, processing and scan comes in at $50, I would use Kodak. $10 4k scan? I'd take that. If its closer to $75 then you'd be saving 40% scanning yourself so its a no brainer.

My feeling is that Kodak will still offer stock without processing and scan just so the few remaining labs can get some business, but who knows? Its a brave new world of Super 8!

I'd keep my eye on the Kodak press releases so you can go buy up some non-prepaid Super 8 before the new release just in case. Although I wouldn't buy too much 500T as that tends not to last over time. Either way, I feel like shooting some film this weekend!

Yeah, at 6mm this lens is going to hit infinite focus in a hurry, even wide open. Will it be possible to screw it up? Probably. But then again 99% of the people who will get this will have a good idea of what they are doing and with that lens it will be straight forward enough. After all, this is something targeted at the enthusiast market. It's not like the people buying this will be making their leap right from a camera phone to shooting 8mm.

Charlie Blackfield wrote:I've been following this thread (and the other ones about this new camera) with a lot of interest, and there's one thing I just don't get. Why keep folks banging on about this camera being likely to produce blurry / out-of-focus pictures? Looking at the specs, it comes with a fixed focus 6mm prime lens. Fixed focus may support the suspicions of blurry pictures, but what about the fact it's a prime lens? This should mean that it should stand a fair chance of producing sharper pictures than the vast majority of other Super 8 lenses. Also, 6mm makes it a pretty wide angle, which usually translates into a very decent depth of field. So unless you're shooting constantly at f1.2 or near that kind of thing and/or at very close range, you should end up with reasonably sharp/in-focus pictures. Or have I missed anything here?

It's certainly good news that they launch this new camera. And if it gets sold at 400 dollars, I'll almost certainly buy one. At 750 dollars, I'll seriously consider it. At 1,000 dollars - well, maybe not. Let's wait and see.

Charlie

I think that they're referring to older Super 8 cameras having the tendency to produce blurry images, and that a 4k workflow wouldn't benefit anyone (or most casual users). I think all of these problems will be nearly negated by the video screen (as well as the specific lens they're using). I've found that the biggest reason for S8 to be out of focus to be either that the diopter is mis-focused, or that the focus display-system is not followed by the user (I work at a film school, and I always stress to people the importance of reading the manual to learn the specific focus system their camera employs).

RyanH wrote:Yeah, at 6mm this lens is going to hit infinite focus in a hurry, even wide open. Will it be possible to screw it up? Probably. But then again 99% of the people who will get this will have a good idea of what they are doing and with that lens it will be straight forward enough. After all, this is something targeted at the enthusiast market. It's not like the people buying this will be making their leap right from a camera phone to shooting 8mm.

Nothings final yet, but I think a 12.5mm lens would be more ideal. Non the less I like the idea of using interchangeable primes with S8, something i've never had the pleasure of. I find that the diopters are out of whack on a lot of older cameras. Setting the diapter and using your beam splitter is critical for sharp images. After owning several Nizo's and Canon's of the same model, I've noticed the optics can vary quite a bit, depending on the condition. I have a Canon 814XLS that I bought unopened about 10 years ago and have yet to experience an S8 camera with a sharper viewfinder. Since everything on this camera is going to be brand new, I think it will be producing better images... at least for me. On the other hand, MOST of the well exposed film that I scan from the late 60's on K40 is pretty damn sharp. Because people back then knew how to manual focus, and their optics were still properly aligned. And i'm guessing that at least 90% of the people who buy this camera will have some kind of film making experience already, or in film school.

I think this camera is a huge marketing failure because it doesn't have a wide angle lens. Average Joe user wants to shoot Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, etc. -- interiors. But it's really hard to shoot interiors with such a long lens.

I do concede, however, that Kodak's new camera is not a something that will be used in "typical" 1960's consumer situations...

Tscan wrote:All of those C-mount non reflex Kerns should work fine, but they've all quadrupled in price in the last few years.

you might check ebay... in the last year, or so, I purchased three Switar AR lenses (f1.6 10mm, f1.8 16mm, f1.5 25mm) for $100-120 each. they did all require a CLA, but even at an additional $100 each they were total deals. I also picked up a Switar AR f1.4 50mm for about $300. The Switar 75mm seems to be the most expensive, but I'm hoping to snag one for 'cheap' one of these days.

The fall in prices, i'm willing to wager, is due to M-4/3 cameras declining in popularity

I use the Pentax version of this on my Beaulieu 4008 from time to time. Makes the camera extremely light and easy to use but of course not nearly as sharp as the Angie. Convenient that you don't have to think about focus past 1.5 feet.

This morning though I was reading an article in a professional engineering magazine on the topic of digital versus film. Along with the better appearance of a filmed original there are evidently a few technical reasons for using film. On is that 35mm is equivalent to 10k!!! while cinemas just need to project at 4k. Other problems with digital with lighting and filming moving objects.

Fuji bowed out of movie film and Kodak stuck in with a bit of backing with orders for stock from Hollywood. The fact that the last Star Wars Film was filmed has probably tipped the market back to film. I suspect the super 8 camera with digital enhancements is aimed as much at the educational market as it is at the affluent amateur.

LPs have made a surprising comeback. Why not film?

I like the inclusive processing and scanning. I do not think many people really want to go back to setting the projector, threading the film etc. All I can remember of Interstellar is the hair in the gate of the Imax projector when I saw it!!!

Not sure if it will be within my pension budget, but we will see. Maybe Lomo will bring out a hand cranked Super8 camera.

Decided not to change web-site, just keep updating. New movies at: http://8mmovies.yolasite.com

A first generation 35mm print from a good lab and a quality negative is just night and day. Not sure if 35mm is truly 10k, but 8k seems almost a given.

Recently I saw an outdoor exhibition of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 35mm where the film projector of course broke about 10 minutes into it. The good thing was that I could see the difference between the 35mm and the 4k digital projector they brought as a back up. Absolutely night & day difference in the opening jungle sequence (they started it all over again) where there were lots of shadows. Everyone around me was commenting about the same thing so it wasn't just the "film nerd".

Digital will always have certain advantages and quality gap will keep closing, but I love film whenever I have a choice in the matter.

When money is tight, I find myself shooting film still for personal projects, just not processing it as quickly as I'd like.

On the topic films and 'ks'. Living where I do in the north of England I have regular access to to the National Media Museum in Bradford. There are three cinemas, one is basically Imax which recently was digitised. Last time I went there was to see Interstellar, on film, and remember the hair in the gate!!

Another is a large traditional auditorium which is set up for film and digital. It can run three screen cinerama as well. I have seen digital projections of older films and must say I have been impressed. Breakfast at Tiffanys was the last one I can remember.

The third cinema is a 100 seater. I think it is probably only digital now - must look next time I am there.

I believe most of the digital projection is in 4K or maybe just 2K. Looks as good as a film to me, definitely no hairs in gates!

Have been away I have yet to see the latest Star Wars. Hopefully it might make a return visit.

Decided not to change web-site, just keep updating. New movies at: http://8mmovies.yolasite.com

It's getting close to the 4th quarter and Kodak is pretty tight lipped about any release details, or any new details. I'm starting to think an October release is getting slim. I called the 800# and they just said, "no new information is available"